Consumption Theory - Economics and Ecology: United for a Sustainable World - page 58

sufficient to insure survival, what harm is there in acquiring a bit more than
basic subsistence to add a modicum of pleasure to life? As such, music, the
arts, and many other forms of social interactions are universally recognized
as desirable and life-enhancing qualities.
It would be impossible to trace the genesis of this seductive notion in the
human psyche—namely, the desirability of acquiring or consuming more
than just the necessities of basic survival. No doubt, the idea goes back mil-
lennia—not just centuries—and it is widely believed that acquisitiveness is
an innate human trait. Although we doubt this premise, it is a debate for
philosophers and the broader range of social scientists.
Let us be clear. There is no more fundamental point anywhere in this topic
than the notion of surplus . Surplus can be defined as the availability of goods
or services over and above those required to just break even. This is true
whether breaking even is considered from the point of view of the individ-
ual (consumer) or from a business (producer). As we will see, many of the
fundamental notions of economics spring from this seemingly simple and
innocuous idea.
In a production sense, breaking even is a position of zero profit, or just
enough to keep the business in existence. Once the firm creates a surplus in
the form of profit, the issue of distribution raises its ugly head. Do we pay it
out in dividends to the shareholders (owners), or do we raise the wages of
the employees (workers)? Thus, the issue of surplus gives rise to the age-old
owner versus worker dispute (Proletariat versus Bourgeoisie to Karl Marx),
which is at the core of capitalism.
Let us explore further the economic notion of distribution. Think about it. If
everyone in a given defined community (e.g., family, tribe, village, or region)
has just enough goods (or income) to meet daily necessities, many issues do
not arise. Everyone has enough, but no more. There are, for instance, no rich
or poor. Moreover, the distinction does not even arise. Once a surplus exists,
however, the questions of who gets what and how it is used—as well as all
the potential conflicts over these questions—arises. This is a consumption-
based way of viewing the ramifications of surplus.
The use of such surplus has defined civilizations throughout recorded
history. For example, the Romans extracted resources, or “riches,” from
their far-flung empire to support a lavish lifestyle for the ruling elite in
Rome. Another famous example of the use of surplus centers on the feu-
dal society during the Middle Ages. The Church, as well as the nobility in
England and on the continent funded grand palaces and cathedrals while
the peasant class and serfs survived at bare subsistence levels. This class-
based arrangement (despite some governmental modernization as a result
of the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment) evolved into the upper-class/
working-class structure following the Industrial Revolution, which led into
Victorian England.
All these social structures were determined by choices made on the use
of surplus. The disintegration or outright downfall of any social group can